General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Matt Giwer]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html#v

Nothing like a source created by deliberate, wilful liars.

Palestinians have the right to the same justice that Jews demand for themselves. That includes property and residence rights. Whatever the consequences for the Jews in Israel those are consequences those Jews deliberately chose and continue to choose freely and with full knowledge. Any pretense to the contrary is a statement that Jews are stupid and immature.

As to that list of lies, I commend your attention to the first URL in my sig. Do that BEFORE you post material that I have already addressed in those short lists and in long form in this forum. Get up to speed before you post more long exposed lies that you are too intelligent not to know are lies.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro
Doesn't state that the border will be decided by Israel, but through negotiations, as it has through all the previous peace negotiations.

Netanyahu said Jerusalem will never be divided or shared. Soo much for negotiations.

 

[Virus]

Parky, a critical mass of Palestinans don't want Israel to exist at all. Do you deny this?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Another fantasy collapses

“You could find the equivalent of 2.5% of the territories, but when people in Israel talk about it, they are talking about keeping 6% to 10%. Finding that kind of land inside Israel just can’t be done,” said Tel Aviv University geographer Gideon Biger, editor of the “Encyclopedia of International Boundaries.”

And of course Israel NEVER made an offer in writing but did talk about nonsense that was not an acceptable land exchange.

But Olmert could make such an offer only because he ignored three principles on which Palestinian leaders insist. The first is that exchanges must be on an acre-for-acre ratio, and Olmert was offering only areas equivalent of 5.8% of the territories. The second is that the land must be what they consider good quality — usually assessed from agricultural criteria — while large sections of what Olmert offered are not easily cultivated. The third is that Palestinians must be compensated acre for acre for the Israeli presence in parts of Jerusalem that was captured in 1967, while Olmert’s calculations discounted Jerusalem. These principles are clear from documents from the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit that were leaked earlier this year to Al-Jazeera.

Much of the problem is a false premise.

Not only would a full evacuation be hazardous for any Israeli government on the domestic political front, but it also would be logistically difficult and exceedingly costly.

A political problem of course but Jews have no right to expectations superior to the Palestinians. They can all climb into trucks to get to refugee tent camps in Israel. The Chosenites are no better than anyone else despite their internal beliefs to the contrary.

 

[theprestige]

The belief that winning makes it right is fascism.

There's your personal definition of fascism, again.

But I'm not sure this is a belief that anybody is actually promoting, or actually believes in. I certainly don't, and it's not what I understand anybody else to be saying, either.

Instead, my point--my "belief", if you like--is that winning is winning. That is a simple, obvious, and historical fact. Losers petition winners for a piece of what they lost. Winners pick and choose how much generosity they care to show to losers.

Winners possess things not because they're right, but because they won.

The United States didn't get to impose martial law on Japan because they were right. They got to impose martial law because they won. In fact, their rightness had nothing to do with it, any more than Japanese rightness had anything to do with Japan dominating parts of China in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Argentina didn't lose the Falklands War due to a shortage of fascism. They lost the war due to a shortage of winning. The UK doesn't possess the Falklands because they're right, nor does winning the war make it right for them to possess the Falklands. But winning the war does very much mean that they do, in fact, possess the Falklands. Anybody who wants to take the Falklands away from them must either transform them from winners into losers (regardless of whether it's right to do so), or else must petition them as a loser to a winner, for a gift such as only a winner has the power to give.

The Palestinians seem to want it both ways: They want to keep fighting Israel, even though by all sane measures Israel has already won, and the Palestinians have most definitely already lost. And they also want to keep petitioning Israel for winner's gifts. I think their conflicted approach is the main reason why they are still in the position they're in.

They may even be in the right. Their petitions may even be based on sound principles of humanitarian law and social justice and whatnot. But their being right doesn't change one bit the fact that they're the losers. And, like all losers, their fortune ultimately rests not on being right, but on convincing the winners that they are right.

Right and wrong is a matter of rhetoric and sophistry.

Possession is a matter of force.

 

[The Fool]

Because the Arabs couldn't make the Western-style institutions left over from colonialism work. They were sized by the most ruthless tribes and turned into instruments of repression and control, due to ingrained tribal habits which never had any concept of consensual rule or compromise.

the british invited someone to be the king. They left no "Western-style institutions " they left a king and left it to the king to decide what happened....thats what Kings do.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Because Israel only looks better when compared to the worst

It was unbearable hypocrisy. The prime minister is mistaken and misleading, and it's a disgrace that members of Congress applauded him. The prime minister chose to compare democracy in Israel to the Arab world. But if he is so proud of democracy in Israel, then why doesn't he compare it to democracy in Canada or in Sweden or in Switzerland?
A turd doesn't smell as bad when compared to larger turds.


I can only speak for the US when I point out admissions committees would be criminal if tried in the US. Permitting them as a matter of law is by definition apartheid.

But let's look at it another way: Is there a democratic country in the world where there are unrecognized villages? In Israel there are. Is there a country in the world where there are laws that allow for admissions committees to prevent citizens from living in certain communities? In Israel there are. Is there a country with a true democracy where a bill like the Nakba Law can be passed or where citizenship can be revoked, including citizenship of tens of thousands of Palestinians from East Jerusalem? Is there a democratic state that rules over another people as Israel does over the Palestinians?

Israel always claimed that because there were two governments and divisions, it was impossible to conduct negotiations. Now that there is a reconciliation agreement, they're demanding that it be torn up.

Because it is easier to sell no negotiations based upon being divided than to sell based upon not divided. No matter which, there can be no negotiations.

 

[a_unique_person]

There's your personal definition of fascism, again.

But I'm not sure this is a belief that anybody is actually promoting, or actually believes in. I certainly don't, and it's not what I understand anybody else to be saying, either.

Instead, my point--my "belief", if you like--is that winning is winning. That is a simple, obvious, and historical fact. Losers petition winners for a piece of what they lost. Winners pick and choose how much generosity they care to show to losers.

Winners possess things not because they're right, but because they won.

The United States didn't get to impose martial law on Japan because they were right. They got to impose martial law because they won. In fact, their rightness had nothing to do with it, any more than Japanese rightness had anything to do with Japan dominating parts of China in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Argentina didn't lose the Falklands War due to a shortage of fascism. They lost the war due to a shortage of winning. The UK doesn't possess the Falklands because they're right, nor does winning the war make it right for them to possess the Falklands. But winning the war does very much mean that they do, in fact, possess the Falklands. Anybody who wants to take the Falklands away from them must either transform them from winners into losers (regardless of whether it's right to do so), or else must petition them as a loser to a winner, for a gift such as only a winner has the power to give.

The Palestinians seem to want it both ways: They want to keep fighting Israel, even though by all sane measures Israel has already won, and the Palestinians have most definitely already lost. And they also want to keep petitioning Israel for winner's gifts. I think their conflicted approach is the main reason why they are still in the position they're in.

They may even be in the right. Their petitions may even be based on sound principles of humanitarian law and social justice and whatnot. But their being right doesn't change one bit the fact that they're the losers. And, like all losers, their fortune ultimately rests not on being right, but on convincing the winners that they are right.

Right and wrong is a matter of rhetoric and sophistry.

Possession is a matter of force.

Epic fail. The USA fought a war against an imperialist invader with a particularly nasty streak. It won because it had superior forces. Winning didn't make the war right.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Israel knowingly lies about Iran too.

The Ofer Brothers Group may be scurrying into damage control in Israel, Singapore, London and Washington, after the United States blacklisted it for trading with Iran, but Israel seems to be doing nothing to enforce international sanctions on Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who endlessly preaches the need for firm action against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear arms, is not lifting a finger to stop Israeli companies and individuals indirectly trading with Iran.

Nor is he acting against international companies and corporations that operate in Iran, while maintaining huge contracts with Israeli companies - including state bodies like the Electric Corporation and Airport Authority.

We have been hearing all the crap about Iran from pissant Israel and we have had intelligent people pretending to believe it. Screw the words. Look at the actions -- inactions in this case.

Israel is deliberately permitting Israeli companies to strengthen Iran. If Israel believed its own claims about Iran this would never happen. Therefore Israel knows it is lying about Iran.

What is it about Israel that brings out people willing to deliberately lie? Is lying the only way to support Israel? Was that question rhetorical?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Where does Israel go from here?

Israel had plenty of chances in the last week to do something different. Instead the week served only to put an exclamation point after No Change. Fine.

Where do they go from here?

Nothing has changed.

In September at least 3/4th of the UN General Assembly will vote to admit the current government of Palestine as representing everything outside the 1948 borders of Israel. That will include about half the members of the European Union and of NATO. Then it will go to the Security Counsel where the only thing that can stop a confirmation of that is a US veto. The US probably will veto it because, as Israeli newspapers candidly say, Jews will have bought the veto.

That will happen because nothing has changed. How quickly things happen after that is unknown. At least 140 nations will demand Israel end the occupation and most will withdraw their ambassadors. The UN will expel Israel from all committees. Nations will pass laws making it illegal for its citizens to have financial dealings with Israel. Organizations such as the IMF will cut off dealings entirely. There are many other things. Look at the sanctions against Iran for examples. Most countries will honor them instead of ignoring sanctions as Israel does.

These will not happen in any particular order nor on any particular schedule. They will happen because nothing has changed. And although Israel will whine this is exactly what Israel wants to happen because Israel chose to change nothing.

Israel will go through its entire repertoire of "poor us" routines. Israel will say Nazi more often that does the Hitler Channel. But this is exactly what Israel has chosen. It is exactly what Israel wants to happen to it.

 

[theprestige]

Epic fail. The USA fought a war against an imperialist invader with a particularly nasty streak. It won because it had superior forces. Winning didn't make the war right.

Fail how? You just summarized my post with admirable pith. As far as I can tell, we absolutely agree. I made a point, and you restated it in terms I fully endorse and support.

 

[Virus]

I just watched Netanyahu's speech to congress and I thought it was pretty awesome.

 

[bigjelmapro]

What did I give up? I did not accuse Israel or Jews of fascism. I said anyone who says winning makes it right is a fascist. You win every debate by inventing something I didn't say, then saying it was wrong.

Seriously? Every hapless attempt at re-defining certain terms has failed utterly. Every time you've been cornered with any discussion where a term was pinned to Israel, ie fascism, apartheid, etc., the only response was more pointless rhetoric, ignoring, backpeddling, rinse, repeat.

Now, let's try this again:

''I want to be very clear on this point. Israel will be generous on the size of a Palestinian state but will be very firm on where we put the border with it. This is an important principle [that] shouldn't be lost.''

Your response:

One of the most important detaila, the border, will be decided by Israel. Apart from that, they will be generous. I think after claiming the first point, any generosity will be by definition impossible.

Where does it state that the border will be decided by Israel?

And as for another bout of accusations that I'm putting words in your mouth, remember not too long ago:

...
I do find it comical though that there is so much emphasis put on Israel, judgin by the size, and the actual connection to the land in question, by the people in question. This cannot be said by other countries by those lovely post-colonialist powers. But hey, no real rules of law back then eh? Oh wait...
...

Are you saying the people who lived there at the time, and live there now, apart from those expelled, have no connection with the land? WTF does size have to do with it?

You see where I'm going with this? This is again, case and point of your utter hypocrisy.

Answer the above question, otherwise, retract/revise your position.

 

[Skeptic]

The disagreement between Obama and Netanyahu seems to be the same as it usually was between the USA and Israel: should borders and security be discussed first or the issue of recognizing Israel's legitimacy? Netanyahu, correctly I think, believes the latter, Obama the former. But this disagreement seems to me nothing new.

What Netanyahu's speech *did* do was not fight Obama, but note -- quite correctly -- that neither Hamas nor the "moderate" PLO recognize Israel as anything more than a temporary invader, neither agree to the legitimacy of a Jewish state, and both want Israel destroyed -- Hamas through bombs, Abbas through the "right of return". Their disagreement is one on tactics, but they both agree on the ultimate goal.

Netanyahu insisted -- and this is what makes him an "evil right wing extremist" to some -- that the Jewish people actually have a right to a state and that Israel has a right to security and peace, that the Jews actually have a connection and a right to Jerusalem, that it is wrong to first start a war of annihilation on the Jews and then expect them to simply withdraw unconditionally to the old borders so that one could try again.

That this raised the heckle of the usual gang of useful idiots to a white heat of anger shows, again, that they are -- for all their talk about "peace" -- deeply opposed to Israel's existence, and consider it, like the Palestinians, an illegitimate state. Or, as one of the usual gang said succintly, his view is that "zionism sucks".

Note -- importantly -- that this reaction was *not* universal to all Israeli critics on this forum. Some reacted differently: by noting that they agree more with Obama than with Netanyahu. Well, I think that's naive, but, unlike the useful idiots, it's certainly quite possible to not hate Israel and still take that view over Neyanyahu's (I think) less naive view: we have here disagreement is on facts or priorities, optimism vs. pessimism, shall we say, but not on whether or not Israel is an illegitimate state that should be destroyed.

It is no wonder that the useful idiots agree so closely with a notorious antisemitic holocaust denier on this forum. A man whose web site is one long list of hatred towards the Jews, who one-time signature on the internet was that his web site is the place where "all kikes are lampshades", is in essential agreement with the useful idiots on what direction the "peace process" should take.

That's because for him, like for the useful idiots, Hamas, and the PLO, the goal of the "peace process" is Israel's annihilation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Seriously? Every hapless attempt at re-defining certain terms has failed utterly. Every time you've been cornered with any discussion where a term was pinned to Israel, ie fascism, apartheid, etc., the only response was more pointless rhetoric, ignoring, backpeddling, rinse, repeat.

I made no assertion that Israel was fascist, I said that the assertion that might is right is fascist. Maybe you should just read what I said.

 

[a_unique_person]

The disagreement between Obama and Netanyahu seems to be the same as it usually was between the USA and Israel: should borders and security be discussed first or the issue of recognizing Israel's legitimacy? Netanyahu, correctly I think, believes the latter, Obama the former. But this disagreement seems to me nothing new.

When has Obama ever thought it was even a valid question? It's an assumption that it is 'legitimate', whatever that means to anyone. To me it means it is a state that exists with a government. Talk of legitimacy is just a diversion.

 

[Matt Giwer]

I just watched Netanyahu's speech to congress and I thought it was pretty awesome.

Everyone appears to agree it was stylistically perfect. So were Hitler's.

The issue is content. There was nothing new. Where does Israel go from here?

 

[Matt Giwer]

Stop wasting bandwidth

Discussing anyone's speech including the PM's is wasting bandwidth.

The fact is after a week of speeches nothing has changed.

Where does Israel go from here?

Where does Israel go when its position has not changed from a week ago?

Where does Israel go now that it is entrenched in its position of a week ago this time when everyone agreed a disaster is coming in September?

Israel has chosen the disaster of September. Why did Israel make this choice?

 

[bigjelmapro]

I made no assertion that Israel was fascist, I said that the assertion that might is right is fascist. Maybe you should just read what I said.

In this thread, you made a statement to those who won with military might and correlated that to a fascist ideology. So an underhanded correlation to Israel since the topic was Israel.

Do a simple search and you get another underhanded correlation: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=516654&postcount=11.

So unlike the term apartheid, which you regularly accuse Israel of committing (also in the examples given that in the post you replied to), you did in fact make the assertion that Israel was fascist. Really not that difficult to follow and no amount of backpeddling will change that.

EDIT: The thread link I linked above is from years ago, but you still use the same tactic which Skeptic called you out on, which several years later, you still adhere to:

It's AUP's modus operandi. Whenever defeated in an argument, he gets the "last word" in by some cynical, baseless one-liner, and leaves the thread.

Albeit, you haven't left the thread yet, you simply peddle something else and ignore all previous posts.

 

[Thunder]

No serious country is questioning Israel's right to exist. Only loony protestors.

Its clearly a right-wing Zionist strawman.

Next they will declare that they refuse to force Israel to withdraw to the 1947 Partition Lines.